For the first time in living memory, California's entire diverse galaxy of campaign finance reform groups has united behind a single ballot measure campaign. Surprisingly, this reform grand alliance is actually aimed at defeating a campaign finance reform proposal--namely, Proposition 34, a measure placed on the November ballot by Gov. Gray Davis and the Democrats.
Over the past 25 years, not a single major campaign reform proposal both has passed and survived legal challenge either in California or on the federal level. These decades of unbroken failure have had a perverse political effect: Practical reformers have become discouraged and left the movement to pursue other, more attainable objectives, while a core of rigid ideologues has remained behind. Such individuals share the same near-mystical goal of expelling all money from politics but indulge in fratricidal disputes over arcane doctrine and political strategy. Although sensible reformers recognize that the perfect must never become the enemy of the good, such ideas are blasphemy to all too many campaign reformers.
Under these circumstances, I would very much like to support Proposition 34. Unfortunately, the utter dishonesty of both that measure and the campaign behind it outweigh even the unrealistic views of its opponents.
Many of the provisions of Proposition 34 are practical and reasonable. Legislative and statewide non-gubernatorial candidates would have their donations capped at $3,000 and $5,000 respectively, amounts high enough to survive legal challenge but low enough to end California's current system of legalized near-bribery, in which contribution checks for $100,000 or $200,000 are becoming the dominant political force.
The real intent of Proposition 34, however, is not to enact reasonable campaign finance laws but instead to repeal existing campaign finance laws.
Back in 1996, a coalition of reform groups led by Common Cause, the American Assn. of Retired Persons and the League of Women Voters passed a very strict campaign reform measure, Proposition 208, in a 61% landslide, despite being outspent about 20-1 by opponents. These well-funded adversaries--including the Democratic and Republican parties, major unions and corporations--then resorted to legal challenges, eventually tying the measure up in federal court on 1st Amendment grounds. With the U.S. Supreme Court having recently approved similar measures in other states, most observers give Proposition 208 an excellent chance of being revived. So the bipartisan special interests that dominate our state government quickly wrote Proposition 34 and placed it on the ballot, allowing no public comment and drafting the measure in such a way that a 51% vote in favor of Proposition 34 would overturn the previous 61% popular vote in favor of Proposition 208.
